endostate

Capitalism is voluntary trade. The results is profit for both parties ie: they are both capitalists. In your parking lot example the parker profits with a spot, and the lot owner profits with money. If it's voluntary, how is it a bad thing? Value is subjective. If you think of capital as friends and capitalism as friendliness (happiness is profit), it's like that person is saying "Hey, look at that happy guy. So many friends from being so friendly. Pure capitalist."

Since value is subjective, I think the price offered by the consumer is the determining factor. It's like proposing a simple formula to apply to food and chefs to help determine if what they are making is actually good. I guess comparing sales figures is a good start... Good Sales = Good Art?

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-apophenia.htm http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-confirmation-bias.htm http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

But isn't respect subjective? That's like saying, "This chocolate ice cream doesn't deserve to be tasty." Property rights and fiction are examples of ideas not based in reality - are they bullshit?

Translated for clarity : I'm coming out as a Santa believer! In one of the recent call in shows Stef made me feel much more safe being a Santa believer in a heavily rational community (I know, how ironic). But yeah. I'm one of them Santa freaks. Just thought I'd let y'all know. That is a good question and one that I've thought about a lot. It would be one I'd think much more about when that time approaches. On one hand I believe that there is a Santa and I want to impart the truth as I understand it to my children. On the other hand I do not want to impose my own conclusions on my children where they are sufficiently controversial and have huge world view implications. I suppose I would be inclined to take a "sharing" approach. That is, I would not go out of my way to indoctrinate my children with Santa stories, but it would be inevitable that my child inquires into those particular beliefs. At which point I would offer what I believe (in an age-appropriate fashion) and explain my reasons behind thinking so. If they are curious, I would spend some time conversing about it. I would also strive to create a relationship wherein my child would feel free to disagree with me, especially on important matters, as I wouldn't want them to conform to what I believe out of fear of abandonment. I want my children to be Santa believers but I believe that if Santa exists then indoctrination is unnecessary. I would be more concerned with teaching my child how to think so he or she can come to the right conclusions about reality. If the Santa from the stories is at the end of that as I've found him to be, then my child will arrive there also. If I'm wrong, then they have a better shot at arriving at the truth if I give them the right tools early on. I do know that I think much of the story of elf enslavement is not age appropriate and I can't see myself imposing those aspects on my child before they could handle them. If I brought them to Santa Club (if they wanted to go) I would want to make sure the songs that they hear are appropriate. Those are some of my thoughts, but I'm not close to being a parent, so I would probably have much more of a refined approach planned out if I saw children in my immediate future. Sort of a loaded question. I think people will be denied presents, but I don't think it's for not believing, I think people get denied presents because they reject Santa. As Stef points out, there are some Santa fans who think that being denied presents is the separation from Santa. I count myself as being among those. I think that separation from Santa is a truly terrible thing but I do not think it's an active torture involving literal denial of presents. I don't want to debate this at the moment (we can do that some other time if you'd like!) but that's my answer if you're truly wondering what I think. No, that's fine. I would not tell them that (prior to a certain age) because first I don't think it's true (I think children who are bad do not get denied presents) and second I don't think it's entirely age appropriate. I don't think it's a denial of presents threat as Stefan has put it (though I don't doubt that some Santa story fans have used and phrased it as one) but I also think it's rather inappropriate for children to hear. There are adults who can barely comprehend an eternity of no presents (I count myself one of those) so I would not want to burden my child with the thought that they or anyone might be denied presents for eternity. I would be more comfortable telling my child about the consequences of not believing in general. I'm mostly kidding about coming out of the closet. I'm not too shy about it but I did feel somewhat awkward being a Santa believer in a community like this. The speech Stef gave just made me feel more welcome so I thought I'd share. I have lapses in faith all the time and go back and forth frequently about what is true. For the person who said something about finding solace in Santa bringing gifts, that is only partially true. I find solace in Santa stories but it is also a great burden and there are times where I'd rather be rational if I could bring myself to believe that there is no Santa. Santa freak thing was also a sort of joke. I believe in both magically getting presents and being denied presents. I believe in the magic of Santa. Not sure what I think about Rudolph and Frosty (sorry for copout answer). I think the flying reindeer story was probably a local tornado. Not really the latter at all. I was raised believing in St. Nick but it was just a sort of formality. My family is not really into Santa. I don't have many Santa believing friends either. To answer your first question, they are not inherently believable to me. If all I had was the poem "A Visit From St. Nicholas" I probably would not believe it. I struggle with a lot of those stories even still. I am particularly stricken and convinced by the historicity of Rudolph and it seems inescapable to me that he believed in the poem. So given that I am convinced that Rudolph was the reindeer of Santa, I sort of take the old poems "on faith" in a "I don't really understand a lot of this stuff but you have enough credibility with me that I'll take your word for it." Does that make sense? Edit: To clarify I don't take the whole of the story of Santa on faith, I am convinced by arguments regarding Rudolphs' magic and that gives him a lot of credibility with me so I take his word on things that seem less plausible as a result.

uoverkommeligt dyre ?

It seems these types of groups disregard sexual dimorphism. They should see the difference between men and women's olympic records!

Ask them back, "Why not $145,000 per year?" Sometimes people have to hit a tree before they realize they're running blind in a forest.

Interesting, can it distinguish drivers from passengers?

It appears your coworker thinks truth is subjective (opinions). Here's a way to test that theory, tell him the book of Mormon was written by Gary Smith.When he tries to correct you, insist you know it was Gary Smith and simply ask, "isn't the truth that I know for myself, and the conviction derived from it, all that matters?"He may then see the relevance of objective truth (facts).

I found David Logan's talk called Tribal Leadership to be helpful. He divides people conversing at parties into tribes which fit into 5 stages of evolution: Stage 1 - Life sucksStage 2 - My life sucksStage 3 - I'm great, you suckStage 4 - We're greatStage 5 - Life's greatDavid Logan: Tribal Leadership (16:36) - Ted Talkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTkKSJSqU-IAlso: "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." --Eleanor Roosevelt

Since government is made up of the same people, the statist's argument doesn't seem to be logical:“There is no way anarchism could work because people are inherently bad and without some of these inherently bad people having a monopoly on violence, everyone would rob, rape, murder, and throw burning Molotov cocktails into store front windows.” Also consider government employees' rampant use of theft (taxes), rape (prison), murder (cops/military), and molotovs (regulations) to get what they want. With over 262,000,000 democides in the past century, excluding war, I'll take my chances without it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_traditional_children%27s_gameshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_Principlehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_board_gameshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_card_gameshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dice_gameshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sportshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_gamehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendshiphttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtshiphttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquettehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property

Obviously, since it's obvious.

How does flagging road hazards detract from the overall quality of the road?

Spanking works good now, but a broken bond works bad later. Excessive sugar tastes good now, but diabetes feels bad later. I think you're right, if a nutritionist feels like they have to completely destroy every aspect of the sugar tasting good in order to win an argument about nutrition, I may see them as dishonest, insecure and fanatical.